Not "a better place", just a smaller space

"Bok's model is based on two premises: that we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions, and that maintaining social trust is a fundamental goal."  Bok's model includes three steps when it comes to making ethical decisions. First, she says to "consult your won conscience about the "rightness" of an action." Then, she says to "seek expert advice for alternatives to the act creating the ethical problem." And lastly, "conduct a public discussion with the parties involved in the dispute." (Patterson & Wilkins p.3-4) Let's use Bok's model to see if Polkin and the Journal made an ethical decision in keeping the neighbor's privacy who bullied Megan Meler into committing suicide.

Megan Meler was 13 years old when she hung herself in her closet. A boy she met online turned viciously aggressive, telling her "the world would be a better place without you." Polkin decided to take this story public, but was faced with a serious ethical decision: to name the neighbor who bullied Megan, or keep their privacy.

1. How do you (Polkin) feel about the action? The article states that Polkin and his superiors mulled over the situation and chose to wait a little before writing the story. It seems Polkin knew that if he didn't release the names of the neighbors, the community would be outraged and his reputation as a journalist might get hit. He could lose some trust in his readers. (The second premise of Bok's model) But at the same time, if he did release the names, a young kid and their family would be put on blast in the community. This might hurt them more and ruin an entire families life.

2. Seek expert advice for alternatives. Polkin went to the authorities on the case and discovered that there was no law the neighbors had broken. It was unfortunate that they partook in the bullying and Megan's death was a result, but ultimately no one could charge them with anything. 

3. As far as we know as readers, Polkin didn't discuss this matter with the other family.

So, Pulkin (and his editor) make the decision to keep the family's privacy. This shows Pulkin's empathy for the parties involved in the decision, but may not show his maintenance of social trust. Unfortunately the community lashed out at Pulkin, calling him anything but a true journalist. Pulkin, however felt like he made the right decision. It would have cost the neighbors more pain than it would have cost him his reputation.

Let's take this from a different perspective. John Mill focused primarily on the outcome of an ethical decision. He says that "the consequences of actions are important into deciding whether they are ethical."

In Pulkin's case he chose to protect the bullying family because the damage to them would be far greater than the damage to himself. The Post however, chose to print the bullying families names because the outcome of Pulkin keeping them anonymous proved far worse for the rest of the community. Printing the names made the Post superman compared to the Journal. The Post believed the communities well being to be of more importance. Ultimately, it was wrong for Pulkin not to print the names.

But looking at the Utilitarian view, it seems privacy is a huge issue. The Bok model allowed Pulkin to take the familie's privacy into account and really think about what he was doing. Utilitarianism allows for people to be hurt if it is better for the overall good. But what overall good came from the Post printing the names? Not only did they invade their privacy, they possibly caused that family harm as the surrounding neighbors cast them aside. On the contrary, how can Pulkin not post the names? What these people did was far from anything ethical. They disrupted the community, they themselves caused harm on someone else, and Megan's family would not see any justice for their daughter. The Post may have invaded the neighbor's privacy, but they invaded Megan's privacy first.

I find the utilitarian view to be a bit more compelling. When you look solely on the result of a decision stemming from an ethical issue, you automatically produce an option: right or wrong. Utilitarianism makes things black and white. You either agree with the decision, or you don't. In turn, this causes great debate over the ethical situation. Everyone will have their own opinion, and there will always be someone who would have done it differently.

When it comes to social media sites like Facebook I think it's so far past the point of being able to control cyber bullying. Facebook is so huge, how are they going to create a system that can fairly manage this kind of use? It seems Facebook would have to produce a law or rule for the site that isn't too restraining but detailed enough that cyber bullies could be caught. And now that we've seen a case or two where kids are harmed due to cyber bullies, I think this is out of the hands of facebook. This is now a matter for the government now, to step up and take a shot at keeping cyber bullies out of cyberspace. The opposing argument to this is the first amendment, but if this so called "free speech" causes another person to commit suicide, how different is that really from driving the get-away car of a shooting? Facebook absolutely had a chance to step in and help on this issue, but I think they missed their opportunity. Cyberbullies aren't just on facebook or myspace. They penetrate e-mails, chat rooms, and other sites where people can exchange information and chat.

Law and Order SVU featured a story where the end of episode dealt with this exact issue.  Episode 6 of season 10 titled "Babes," a pregnant girl is bullied by peers mother online and ends up committing suicide at the end of the show. The mother bullied this girl because she influenced her daughter to also get pregnant. The mother wrote nasty e-mails to her daughters friend, posing as someone else, and leading the friend to commit suicide. The mother is taken into custody and charged, not for murder however because there is no law against cyber bullying.